cumulative error in Colorado

2026See People v. Peoples, 8 P.3d 577, 580 (Colo. App. 2000). 33 F. Cumulative Error ¶ 76 Lastly, Monte contends that the cumulative effect of prosecutorial misconduct warrants a new trial. ¶ 77 The cumulative error doctrine applies when “the cumulative effect of [multiple] errors and defects substantially affected the fairness of the trial proceedings and the integrity of the fact-finding process.” Howard-Walker v. People, 2019 CO 69, ¶ 24 (alteration in original) (quoting People v. Lucero, 615 P.2d 660, 666 (Colo. 1980)).

2026Cumulative Error ¶ 75 The cumulative error doctrine applies when “the cumulative effect of [multiple] errors and defects substantially affected the 31 fairness of the trial proceedings and the integrity of the fact-finding process.” Howard-Walker v. People, 2019 CO 69, ¶ 24 (quoting People v. Lucero, 615 P.2d 660, 666 (Colo. 1980)). ¶ 76 However, because we have found only one error and have concluded that error was harmless, we necessarily conclude the cumulative error doctrine does not apply.

2026See People v. Peoples, 8 P.3d 577, 580 (Colo. App. 2000). 33 F. Cumulative Error ¶ 76 Lastly, Monte contends that the cumulative effect of prosecutorial misconduct warrants a new trial. ¶ 77 The cumulative error doctrine applies when “the cumulative effect of [multiple] errors and defects substantially affected the fairness of the trial proceedings and the integrity of the fact-finding process.” Howard-Walker v. People, 2019 CO 69, ¶ 24 (alteration in original) (quoting People v. Lucero, 615 P.2d 660, 666 (Colo. 1980)).

2026Cumulative Error ¶ 75 The cumulative error doctrine applies when “the cumulative effect of [multiple] errors and defects substantially affected the 31 fairness of the trial proceedings and the integrity of the fact-finding process.” Howard-Walker v. People, 2019 CO 69, ¶ 24 (quoting People v. Lucero, 615 P.2d 660, 666 (Colo. 1980)). ¶ 76 However, because we have found only one error and have concluded that error was harmless, we necessarily conclude the cumulative error doctrine does not apply.

2026See People v. Thames, 2019 COA 124, ¶ 69 (“[A] single error is insufficient to reverse under the cumulative error standard.”).

2026When we review for cumulative error, “the ultimate question is whether the errors deprived the defendant of a fair trial.” People v. Vialpando, 2020 COA 42, ¶ 67 (citing Howard-Walker, ¶ 40), rev’d on other grounds, 32 2022 CO 28 ; see also Howard-Walker, ¶ 25 (“Stated simply, cumulative error involves cumulative prejudice.”). ¶ 68 Although we conclude that the prosecutor made an improper comment about Torreyson’s “cowardly” decision not to cross- examine Nelson, “a single error is insufficient to reverse under the cumulative error standard.” People v. Thames, 2019 COA 124, ¶ 69 .

2026See People v. Villa, 240 P.3d 343, 359 (Colo. App. 2009). 21 IV.

2026See People v. Villa, 240 P.3d 343, 359 (Colo. App. 2009) (cumulative error analysis is required only when multiple errors have been identified).

2025See People v. Rivers, 727 P.2d 394, 401 (Colo. App. 1986) (“The doctrine of cumulative error requires that numerous errors be committed, not merely alleged.”). 28 VI.

2024“The doctrine of cumulative error requires that numerous errors be committed, not merely alleged.” People v. Rivers, 727 P.2d 394, 401 (Colo. App. 1986). 56 ¶ 127 We have found one error in the prosecutor’s closing argument and assumed three other possible errors for purposes of our plain error analysis, finding each nonprejudicial.

2026Cumulative Error ¶ 32 Under the cumulative error doctrine, “numerous formal irregularities, each of which in itself might be deemed harmless, 12 may in the aggregate show the absence of a fair trial, in which event a reversal would be required.” Oaks v. People, 371 P.2d 443, 446 (Colo. 1962). ¶ 33 Bishop is not entitled to reversal based on cumulative error.

2025Under the cumulative error doctrine, “numerous formal irregularities, each of which in itself might be deemed harmless, may in the aggregate show the absence of a fair trial, in which event a reversal would be required.” Oaks v. People, 371 P.2d 443, 446 (Colo. 1962).

2026See Howard-Walker v. People, 2019 CO 69, ¶ 24 ; People v. Jones, 2025 COA 43, ¶ 56 (cert. granted on other grounds Jan. 20, 2026); People v. Thames, 2019 COA 124, ¶ 69 .

2026People v. Jones, 2025 COA 43, ¶ 56 (cert. granted Jan. 20, 2026).

2025But we won’t reverse a conviction on this basis unless the cumulative effect of more than one error “substantially 30 prejudice[d] the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” Id. (quoting People v. Whitman, 205 P.3d 371, 387 (Colo. App. 2007)). ¶ 63 “The doctrine of cumulative error requires that numerous errors be committed, not merely alleged.” Id.

2025But we won’t reverse a conviction on this basis unless the cumulative effect of more than one error “substantially 30 prejudice[d] the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” Id. (quoting People v. Whitman, 205 P.3d 371, 387 (Colo. App. 2007)). ¶ 63 “The doctrine of cumulative error requires that numerous errors be committed, not merely alleged.” Id.

2025See People v. Shanks, 2019 COA 160, ¶ 76 (for the cumulative error doctrine to apply, numerous errors must have been committed, not merely alleged).

2025See People v. Shanks, 2019 COA 160, ¶ 76 (for the cumulative error doctrine to apply, numerous errors must have been committed, not merely alleged).

2025See People v. Rivas, 77 P.3d 882, 893 (Colo. App. 2003) (“The cumulative error doctrine applies only if the trial court committed numerous errors . . . .” (emphasis added)).

2025But this doctrine “requires that numerous errors be committed, not merely alleged.” Id.; accord People v. Rivas, 77 P.3d 882, 893 (Colo. App. 2003) (“The cumulative error doctrine applies only if the trial court committed numerous errors, and mere assertions of error by the defendant are insufficient.”). ¶ 63 Because we have identified only one error in this case, relating to the trial court’s proportionality review, the doctrine doesn’t apply. 26 VII.

2025People v. Blackwell, 251 P.3d 468, 477 (Colo. App. 2010). ¶ 88 We have concluded, or assumed, three errors occurred in defendant’s trial concerning (1) the prosecutor’s statement that the victim had opened the restroom door “minutes before” the stabbing; (2) the prosecutor’s statement that defendant “ha[d] to prove” self- 31 defense; and (3) the jury instruction regarding intoxication.

2010People v. Blackwell, 251 P.3d 468, 477 (Colo.App.2010).

2025F. There Was No Cumulative Error Because the Court Did Not Err ¶ 115 “A cumulative error analysis aggregates all trial errors that individually have been found harmless, and therefore not reversible, and analyzes whether their cumulative effect is such that they can no longer be deemed harmless.” People v. Clark, 214 P.3d 531, 543 (Colo. App. 2009), aff’d on other grounds, 232 P.3d 1287 (Colo. 51 2010). “[R]eversal is warranted when numerous errors in the aggregate show the absence of a fair trial, even if individually the errors were harmless or did not affect the defendant’s substantial righ

2025Cumulative Error ¶ 59 “A cumulative error analysis aggregates all trial errors that individually have been found harmless, and therefore not reversible, and analyzes whether their cumulative effect is such that they can no longer be deemed harmless.” People v. Clark, 214 P.3d 531, 543 (Colo. App. 2009), aff’d on other grounds, 232 P.3d 1287 (Colo. 2010).

2015However, “[a] conviction will not be reversed if the cumulative effect of any errors did not substantially prejudice the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” People v. Whitman, 205 P.3d 371, 387 (Colo. App. 2007) (citing People v. Roy, 723 P.2d 1345, 1349 (Colo. 1986)). ¶ 81 Here, we have vacated four counts of first degree burglary—assaulVmenace based on improperly multiplicitous charges.

2003See People v. Roy, 723 P.2d 1345 (Colo.1986). 'We conclude that the cumulative error doctrine does not require a new trial in this case.

2026People v. Daley, 2021 COA 85, ¶ 141 . 26 Because we don’t identify any errors, we need not engage in a cumulative error analysis.

2026People v. Daley, 2021 COA 85, ¶ 141 . ¶ 69 Because we have not identified multiple errors, the cumulative error doctrine does not apply.

2026Larson, P.C. v. Grinnan, 2017 COA 85, ¶ 79 (noting that the doctrine “has not been extended to civil cases” (citation omitted)), it does not apply here because we have concluded that the trial court did not commit any errors, People v. Grant, 2021 COA 53 , ¶ 76.

2025Larson, P.C. v. Grinnan, 2017 COA 85, ¶ 79 .

2026See People v. Krueger, 2012 COA 80, ¶ 78 .

2026See People v. Krueger, 2012 COA 80, ¶ 78 .

2026See, e.g., People v. Gandiaga, 70 P.3d 523, 529 (Colo. App. 2002) (“[P]rejudice may result from the cumulative impact of multiple attorney errors . . . .”); see also Dunlap, 173 P.3d at 1081 (declining to reach a cumulative prejudice argument because trial counsel’s actions did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness); People v. Garner, 2015 COA 174, ¶ 75 (denying ineffective assistance of counsel cumulative error claim in postconviction appeal). ¶ 39 Regardless, Linton’s cumulative prejudice claim cannot prevail.

2025“For reversal to occur based on cumulative error, a reviewing court must identify multiple errors that collectively prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant, even if any single error does not.” Howard-Walker v. People, 2019 CO 69, ¶ 25 ; see also People v. Gandiaga, 70 P.3d 523, 529 (Colo. 21 App. 2002 ) (applying the same standard when considering the cumulative impact of multiple alleged ineffective assistance of counsel claims). ¶ 51 We have rejected all of Forbes’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on the basis that he hasn’t shown that his trial or appellate counsel ren

2024See People v. Stewa rt , 2017 COA 99, ¶ 41 (reversing under the cumulative error doctrine wh ere the trial court’s errors “impacted the theory of defense”) ; Garcia , 179 P.3d at 256-57 (without the excluded evidence related to r ape fantasy and bondage, it was “very unlikely that reasonable ju rors would have considered the [charged] conduct consensual ”). 23 ¶ 45 Additionally, these erro rs prevented Gerle from effectively challenging the victim’s testimony and credibility, which were central to the prosecution’s case.

2024See People v. Stewa rt , 2017 COA 99, ¶ 41 (reversing under the cumulative error doctrine wh ere the trial court’s errors “impacted the theory of defense”) ; Garcia , 179 P.3d at 256-57 (without the excluded evidence related to r ape fantasy and bondage, it was “very unlikely that reasonable ju rors would have considered the [charged] conduct consensual ”). 23 ¶ 45 Additionally, these erro rs prevented Gerle from effectively challenging the victim’s testimony and credibility, which were central to the prosecution’s case.

2025F. There Was No Cumulative Error Because the Court Did Not Err ¶ 115 “A cumulative error analysis aggregates all trial errors that individually have been found harmless, and therefore not reversible, and analyzes whether their cumulative effect is such that they can no longer be deemed harmless.” People v. Clark, 214 P.3d 531, 543 (Colo. App. 2009), aff’d on other grounds, 232 P.3d 1287 (Colo. 51 2010). “[R]eversal is warranted when numerous errors in the aggregate show the absence of a fair trial, even if individually the errors were harmless or did not affect the defendant’s substantial righ

2025Cumulative Error ¶ 59 “A cumulative error analysis aggregates all trial errors that individually have been found harmless, and therefore not reversible, and analyzes whether their cumulative effect is such that they can no longer be deemed harmless.” People v. Clark, 214 P.3d 531, 543 (Colo. App. 2009), aff’d on other grounds, 232 P.3d 1287 (Colo. 2010).

2026When we review for cumulative error, “the ultimate question is whether the errors deprived the defendant of a fair trial.” People v. Vialpando, 2020 COA 42, ¶ 67 (citing Howard-Walker, ¶ 40), rev’d on other grounds, 32 2022 CO 28 ; see also Howard-Walker, ¶ 25 (“Stated simply, cumulative error involves cumulative prejudice.”). ¶ 68 Although we conclude that the prosecutor made an improper comment about Torreyson’s “cowardly” decision not to cross- examine Nelson, “a single error is insufficient to reverse under the cumulative error standard.” People v. Thames, 2019 COA 124, ¶ 69 .

2022Vialpando, ¶ 70, 490 P.3d at 659–60. ¶17 Judge Fox dissented in relevant part, stating that the prosecutor’s closing remarks evoking flight, “[w]hile possibly inartful,” were better categorized as permissible “oratorical embellishment and metaphorical nuance” and, thus, were not improper.

2025Other divisions of this court have declined to extend the doctrine as “[s]uch a significant expansion of precedent . . . is more properly the province of our supreme court.” Id. (quoting Neher v. Neher, 2015 COA 103, ¶ 66 ).

2025Other divisions of this court have declined to extend the doctrine as “[s]uch a significant expansion of precedent . . . is more properly the province of our supreme court.” Id. (quoting Neher v. Neher, 2015 COA 103, ¶ 66 ).

1983Citing People v. Reynolds, 194 Colo. 543 , 575 P.2d 1286 (1978) and Oaks v. People, 150 Colo. 64 , 371 P.2d 443 (1962), appellate counsel for defendant also argues that the doctrine of cumulative error applies, and requires reversal.

1983Citing People v. Reynolds, 194 Colo. 543 , 575 P.2d 1286 (1978) and Oaks v. People, 150 Colo. 64 , 371 P.2d 443 (1962), appellate counsel for defendant also argues that the doctrine of cumulative error applies, and requires reversal.

2026See People v. Peoples, 8 P.3d 577, 580 (Colo. App. 2000). 33 F. Cumulative Error ¶ 76 Lastly, Monte contends that the cumulative effect of prosecutorial misconduct warrants a new trial. ¶ 77 The cumulative error doctrine applies when “the cumulative effect of [multiple] errors and defects substantially affected the fairness of the trial proceedings and the integrity of the fact-finding process.” Howard-Walker v. People, 2019 CO 69, ¶ 24 (alteration in original) (quoting People v. Lucero, 615 P.2d 660, 666 (Colo. 1980)).

2026See, e.g., People v. Gandiaga, 70 P.3d 523, 529 (Colo. App. 2002) (“[P]rejudice may result from the cumulative impact of multiple attorney errors . . . .”); see also Dunlap, 173 P.3d at 1081 (declining to reach a cumulative prejudice argument because trial counsel’s actions did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness); People v. Garner, 2015 COA 174, ¶ 75 (denying ineffective assistance of counsel cumulative error claim in postconviction appeal). ¶ 39 Regardless, Linton’s cumulative prejudice claim cannot prevail.

2026P. 35(c) petition for ineffective assistance of counsel, a cumulative error argument is more properly characterized as “cumulative prejudice.” See Dunlap v. People, 173 P.3d 1054, 1081 (Colo. 2007). 19 therefore conclude that the postconviction court did not err by denying this claim without a hearing.

2026See, e.g., People v. Gandiaga, 70 P.3d 523, 529 (Colo. App. 2002) (“[P]rejudice may result from the cumulative impact of multiple attorney errors . . . .”); see also Dunlap, 173 P.3d at 1081 (declining to reach a cumulative prejudice argument because trial counsel’s actions did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness); People v. Garner, 2015 COA 174, ¶ 75 (denying ineffective assistance of counsel cumulative error claim in postconviction appeal). ¶ 39 Regardless, Linton’s cumulative prejudice claim cannot prevail.